City of New York v. Philips

233 A.D.2d 290, 649 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin a public nuisance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated Noveim ber 10, 1994, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay in responding to the defendant’s 90-day demand and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; 2005; Jeune v O.T. Trans Mix Corp., 202 AD2d 640). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of New York v. Philips, 233 A.D.2d 290, 649 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

233 A.D.2d 290 (City of New York v. Philips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dorsch v. M. Kamath
303 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)